Sunday, April 19, 2015

If You Don't Have The Facts, Invent Them!

I’ve pointed out before that the left has essentially imploded as an ideology. All that is left of their ideology is a list of grievances. What’s more, these grievances are essentially invented by the left because they don’t have actual facts upon which to base their claims. Hence, it should come as no surprise that the left is busy inventing “facts”. Here are two examples:

● Fake Rapes: By now you’ve all heard that the left is trying to invent a rape epidemic. The reason is that the left has come to realize that the only way they have left to push “women’s rights” (read: special draconian legal powers for feminists) is to make the public think that women are in massive danger in society and only a total reformation of the laws can save them.

The first shot at creating a belief in a rape epidemic occurred as far back as at least the 1970s, when feminists invented the statistic that one in five (sometimes said one in ten) rapes aren’t reported. The problem feminists faced at the time was that the federal government keeps pretty good statistics on crime and there just aren’t very many rapes in this country. What’s more, the numbers have been falling steadily. So they needed to find more rapes. That meant inventing them and doing it in a way that couldn’t be easily disproved. Hence, they created the claim that one in five rapes will never be reported, with the idea being that the “real” number of rapes was 5 (or 10) times higher than reported. Along with this, you started hearing that one in four women will be raped in their lifetimes.

Unfortunately, for them, these numbers are obviously bullship. So they invented the idea of date rape and women who didn’t know they were raped until after they realized that they shouldn’t have given consent. Still, no one outside of feminist circles bought this crap either.

Recently, they’ve been busy trying to invent rape stories. This is why Rolling Stone’s fabricated their rape story against the frat and why Lena Dunham fabricated a college rape... in addition to dozens more.

Well, now we have a totally new insane claim which is meant to sell the idea that the Americans everyone thought were good during WWII were really a pack of rapists. This claim comes from a German chick who wrote a book claiming that the World War II allies (Americans, Brits and French... no Russians), raped 285,000 German women. This is ludicrous on its face. Indeed, the military took this crime seriously and reports that 552 rapes occurred, 159 American soldiers were eventually charged, and 29 were hung, and her claim would have there being 516 times the number of real rapes.

So where did the 285,000 figure come from? Get this... the chick started by assuming that 5% of births to unmarried German women between 1945 and 1955 were to American rapists. That is 1,900 births. She then assumes that for each of these, there were 100 rapes which did not result in pregnancy. Consequently, she estimates there were 190,000 rapes by Americans. The other 95,000 rapes were of British or French origin.

Now think about this. This woman has solid evidence only of 552 rapes. Instead, she invents a theory without any backing that 5% of unmarried women who gave birth were raped... with no reason to think this is true. She then combines this with an equally stupid and unsupported theory that there were another 1,000 rapes for each of those fantasy rapes. Essentially, she has invented a fantasy and multiplied it by another fantasy. And she is using that total fantasy, which flies in the face of all reasonable and reliable evidence by a factor of 500 times, to assert her claim that the Americans were dangerous rapists.

Why? Because she hopes, like other feminists, that this will make people think that there is a rape epidemic everywhere because if the supposed good-guy Americans raped that many women, then rape must be going on everywhere.

That is desperate and despicable, but it is the new battleground for feminists and other leftist tribes... invented facts.

● Fake Gays: Gays, like feminists, have been trying to get their numbers up for as long as I can remember. Indeed, many of them still cling to a long discredit number that 1 in 10 people is gay. (This figure was obtained from surveying mental institutions where gays were being treated, and is three to ten times higher than every single legitimate attempt to study the number of gays, which puts the number between 1% and 3% of the population.)

Well, with their numbers falling from one in ten to one in three, the gay lobby needs more ammo. And if you don’t have any, these days you might as well invent it. Hence, a new book claims that pretty much everyone in American history was gay. Washington, Hamilton and Lincoln were all supposed to be gay. As were all the men of Jamestown. And what proof does this turd have? He claims “gaydar” and he says of the Jamestown men, “It’s only natural that men would sleep with each other when there are no women around for months on end.”

Uh, no. That’s not how us heterosexuals think, Mr. Kramer.

Moreover, “gaydar” is not a valid tool of research. Gaydar is not evidence. What’s more, some of the gaydar evidence he points at is things like Washington picking decorative uniforms for his troops, which makes Washington “basically a big queen.” Only, if Kramer had done any research at all, he would have found that the American uniforms were modeled on the British uniforms, only they were blue, and every single country in the world at that time wore roughly similar uniforms.

Basically, Kramer is inventing this. He is doing that in the hopes of claiming that gays have always been openly woven into the fabric of society and that somehow the idea that homosexuality is abnormal is a modern invention.

It’s bunk.

This is what the left has sunk to. How sad.


Kit said...

"Because she hopes, like other feminists, that this will make people think that there is a rape epidemic everywhere because if the supposed good-guy Americans raped that many women, then rape must be going on everywhere."

Meanwhile it was epidemic among the Russian army. Solzhenitsyn even references it quite casually.

Kit said...

The Lincoln one has been thrown around for a while.

The Jamestown one sort of has credence, as there were reports of buggery and bestiality at Jamestown —and reports of men being punished for it.
BTW, the lack of women might have been one of Jamestown's biggest weaknesses as the lack of women meant there was little incentive for the men to build a home and invest in the place early on, as there was in Plymouth.

Not unrelated: Have you been reading Salon recently? ;-)

Kit said...

By "thrown around for a while" I mean it has been thrown around by Larry Kramer and other gay rights activists for a while.

You can't blame them, the most likely candidate for a closeted gay president is James Buchanan, the pro-Southern twit who helped usher the US into a Civil War and was appallingly indecisiveness during the crises of 1859-1860.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, Proving that the Russians were rapists would do no good. Everyone knows that. That would be like proving there are drug lords in Mexico.

What she is trying to do is to sell the idea that people we thought were good/safe people were in fact rapists. The reason for that is to shatter our confidence in established history and our faith in "the good guys." Then, when they claim that even good people are raping women like mad, there is some "factual" basis to support it. "Women aren't even safe from choir boys... see what was hidden during WWII?"

That's the goal.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, Lincoln is perfect for their cause because (1) he's seen as a hero by everyone left, right and center, and (2) he's credited with ending slavery, so gays could claim that. That's why they target someone like Lincoln and why they abandon someone like Buchanan or Carter. I'm sure that in 50 years, they will claim both Clinton and Reagan.

As for Jamestown, don't make the logical mistake that the existence of some is proof of conduct by all. In fact, it kind of goes the other way because they wouldn't have pointed it out if everyone was doing it.

Kit said...

"As for Jamestown, don't make the logical mistake that the existence of some is proof of conduct by all. In fact, it kind of goes the other way because they wouldn't have pointed it out if everyone was doing it."

I never did that, your second sentence was my point when I mentioned them being punished for it. I was being a tad sarcastic.

Kit said...

Kramer also claims Franklin was gay. You know, the Founding Father who is famous for being a lecherous, womanizing playboy even well into his later years and who wrote a letter instructing a young man on the benefits of taking an older woman as a mistress. LINK

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you were. I just wanted to make the point that even if Kramer could point to evidence that a couple people engaged in this conduct, it doesn't at all suggest that more than that did. And most likely those couple people were gay to begin with. I should have been more specific.

As for Franklin, that's the best part of gaydar and other invented proof: all you have to do is spin it and anything can become proof. Take Franklin. If he wasn't with any women, then that is proof that he obviously was gay or he would have been with women. But if he's with a million women, then he was "hiding the truth." If he's with one woman, then he's discreet. It's a faux intellectual game of gotcha.

Rustbelt said...

Two points on the second half of your article, Andrew.

First, I got an email concerning the "gaydar." It reads:

"Hey! That's MY device! I stole, er, uh...invented it, fair and square! I demand royalties from these meatbags and I demand them now. If not, I'll beat up Fry and send these bums the video of it so they'll know what I'll trick a bunch of chumps into doing to said bums for me. You'll receive my complaint after I'm done watching 'All My Circuits.'

Your Unsincerely,
Bender (And, yes, I still rule. You should already know that!)"

For the record, Bender did once use a device called "gaydar," inadvertently saving Leela and Amy from possible bad dates.

Second, on the Jamestown thing...
The idea that men would go gay solely because there are no women around doesn't seem to hold up. When I was reading "The Great Escape," Paul Brickhill mentioned that one of the worst things about being in prison camp was no women. Apparently, the men didn't go the other way to relieve their frustrations. All the POW's could do was dream of sweethearts and Hollywood beauties and curse the Germans for, among other horrors, forcing celibacy and prohibition upon them.
And just when you thought the Germans couldn't get any crueler during WWII...

Kit said...

Bender Bending Rodriguez is one of my heroes.

Anthony said...

Both sides are happy to make up facts to support whatever positions they hold. Someone dedicated and moderately intelligent can blind their opponents and even themselves with bullship during ostensibly fact based debates.

However, the most egregious falsehoods Lott promulgates are strewn throughout his numerous op-ed columns. Here are but a few:

Lott writes in multiple articles that: “With just two exceptions, every public mass shooting in the United States since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens were banned from carrying guns.”

This is blatantly false. In fact, the best evidence indicates that since January 2009 there have been 16 mass shootings (where 4 or more people are killed by a firearm) that took place either in part or wholly in areas where guns were not banned, and 2 others where armed guards or police were there at the time of the shooting. In contrast, 15 mass shootings occurred in “gun-free zones.” Lott’s repeated falsehoods are not born out of ignorance though. Lott penned a sloppy critique of an earlier report on mass shootings, in which he tacitly admitted that of the 8 incidents he took issue with, 4 did not occur in areas that banned guns. He has since turned his critique into an even more error-ridden report.

Critch said...

Next thing you know the libs will want women to go around veiled, being driven by a male relative and always being escorted...rape is the excuse the people in the Middle East use as an excuse to keep women down.

I'm always lost as to why people think that men/women have to have sex. I'm a pretty good reader of history and it never seems to be a problem in POW camps, etc....people should be able to control their impulses, after all, we're humans, not animals.

tryanmax said...

"... numbers falling from one in ten to one in three..."

Correction needed. I knew what you meant, but 1/3 is greater than 1/10.

tryanmax said...

“It’s only natural that men would sleep with each other when there are no women around for months on end.”

What is this? I thought everyone had agreed to go with the "born this way" line. Did someone forget to tell Kramer? Or did something change in the last 400 years that it's no longer a choice? Did humans rapidly "evolve" like Obama between elections? And what about the lost colony of Castro, Delaware?

Seriously, that a gay guy think heteros would just switch it up when ladies are absent--and believes it so thoroughly as to state it casually-- reveals a lot about the psychological aspects of homosexuality.

BevfromNYC said...

Ugh...3 things that jump out at me whenever the "Founders were gay" thing comes up.

1. Firstly, they usually point to the fashions of 17th and 18th Century men's fashions as proof of 'gayness'. However the clothes were very foppish. And Washington and Jefferson were particularly the "metro-sexuals" of their day. They spent alot on clothing. A well-proportions calf, was the hulky biceps and washboard abs of their day. The powdered wigs, silk brocade, embroidered collars and cuffs were all the appointment sof the well-dressed man in England and France. That's why the colonists took as their style the opposite - plain unadorned local broad cloth and wool sans feather froo-froo and ribbons. Franklin was all the rage in Paris with his plain clothes and beaver skin cap.

The second thing that these idiots point out, even with Lincoln is the "ooh, but he slept in the same bed with other men, so he must be..." Yeah, the concept of someone from the middle class or lower actually having a bed all to one's self is pretty much a mid to late 19th Century thing. It was rare that one did have a bed to one's self unless one was sick/dying. If people HAD a bed, they would usually put it in family area for visitors to see as proof of their status.

3. Camp followers - every army had camp followers to keep the men from killing each other...

AndrewPrice said...

Rustbelt, Bender is awesome! :D

I found Kramer's assertion bizarre quite frankly. I know a lot of instances where men found themselves without women. The military is the most common, but there are many others such as North Pole expeditions, etc. And what he claims will happen never happened, and the reason is that (1) gay sex is repugnant to heterosexuals, it is not merely the less preferred option, and (2) heterosexuals don't think with their sex organs... we can go a very long time without having to get off. His view is one that fits only within the sex-obsessed gay community.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, That's true and that's the problem with fringe and single-issue types... they have no real way to sway the public, so they start inventing "facts" to set the public up to buy their assumptions.

These in the article, however, are not only truly bizarre, but they are part of the narrative both groups are struggling to create. Inventing the rape epidemic, for example, has been a collective effort of a whole swath of feminists, and that includes claiming obviously fake rapes as true and then savaging anyone who dares question their delusional "facts."

But yes, all sides do it.

AndrewPrice said...

Critch, The feminists want that the other way around. What they are hoping for is the legal power to control men. That's why they need to convince the public that all men are equal. That way they can demand things like re-education, changes in consent laws, etc.

"I'm always lost as to why people think that men/women have to have sex. I'm a pretty good reader of history and it never seems to be a problem in POW camps, etc....people should be able to control their impulses, after all, we're humans, not animals."

Totally agree. This is the view of the gay male community, who have arranged their lives around their sex organs. Like most obsessives, they think that everyone else is just like them because it makes them feel less crazy. The truth, however, is that people can go a very, very long time without sex. Some can happily go their entire lives. Sex is not like breathing or eating. And as I noted above, to heterosexuals, gay sex is not an alternative to straight sex, it is a repugnant activity. Hence, heterosexuals don't do as Kramer asserts.

Even in prisons, only a tiny percentage will engage in gay sex and they tend to do it as a tool of control. And frankly, I suspect those guys are gay to begin with anyways.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Thanks for the correction. You are correct, that is what I meant!

That's exactly right, it shows the psychology of the gay movement rather than anything accurate about heterosexuals. The fact he doesn't understand how repugnant heterosexuals view gay sex, that we don't see it as an alternative, or that we don't need to constantly have sex tells you a lot about the gay community and why it will never win true acceptance... just tolerance.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Great points. As so often happens, you have a real dose of historical ignorance in these comments. It's the same way people today will tell you how THEY would have been different. Yeah, except that's transplanting a modern view that is taught today and quite popular to a time when only the rarest and bravest of thinkers would have held those views... and few people who like to pretend they would have been special in the past are either rare or brave thinkers.

The fact is that people are slaves to their eras. If everyone wears a wig, then you wear a wig and you don't think a thing about it. And to look back and judge someone then for wearing a wig and to claim that shows some type of intent just because someone today wearing a wig would have that intent is idiotic. Indeed, it's an intensely ignorant view which should automatically disqualify anyone claiming to discuss history: if you can't understand the past at such a basic fundamental level, then how can we trust anything else you say?

Ditto on the bed. Again, you are absolutely right that few people had the luxury of having their own rooms or beds until probably the invention of the suburbs... by evil American capitalists.

As an aside on Washington and the other Founders, lets keep in mind too that many of them were the elite of their day and as such they still would have separated themselves from the crowd with more expensive clothes and personal property.

It's going to take more than: "If someone dressed like that today, I'd think they're gay" to prove this assertion.

Kit said...

"I'm always lost as to why people think that men/women have to have sex. I'm a pretty good reader of history and it never seems to be a problem in POW camps, etc....people should be able to control their impulses, after all, we're humans, not animals."

Especially when you have hands! ;-)

Anthony said...

Sex is a powerful and powerfully distorting drive for lots of people in lots of places. That being said, I take secret mindset claims with tons of salt because as others have pointed out they tend to be wistful thinking.

I can buy that in times and places where homosexuality was more discouraged, more of them tended to be in the closet. Ditto for rape. I've seen some very bad stuff and heard even worse stories. A lot of the crazier rape stories come out of colleges IMHO because young people are both enjoying their new freedom from parental oversight and trying a range of drugs (often in vast quantities).

Kit said...

Sad thing is that there is an interesting history to be told there. There are some figures in American and colonial history who were either likely gay/bisexual. And a few we are quite certain were gay.
Two big ones:
—Walt Whitman (though he might have been bi)
—Frederich Von Steuben, advisor to the Continental Army

There have also been claims about King James (namesake of Jamestown).

Then there is the history of homosexual behavior in America and the treatment of homosexuality from the various reports and punishments in Jamestown and Plymouth to the drumming out of a Continental Army soldier (or maybe officer) for sodomy, and then all the way down to the Stonewall riots and Lawrence v. Kansas.

Larry Kramer's "history" is a parody of history.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, The problem for Kramer and his crew is that history doesn't give them what they want. He wants history to show that gays were widely, publicly accepted in American until the recent rise of the Religious Right. That we, he can negate them by claiming they have imposed an unnatural state on America and then arguing that we should return to that natural state where gays were accepted and seen as natural leaders.

In a similar vein, there was an article the other day (possibly about a book) which tries to claim that "religious America" was invented by Big Business in the 1950s to undo the natural socialist tendencies of America. Yeah, right. But again, if they succeed in selling that propaganda, then they can argue that the natural state of things is atheistic socialism.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, The problem is this... while there are some truly crazy rape stories, they are far too rare to support the idea of a rape epidemic and therefore they don't support a demand for further legislation, and they tend to be statistically inconvenient.

It's like domestic abuse. Statistically, the most likely abuser BY FAR is a young, single black male. And the most likely to result in a murder is an abusive female (highly likely a lesbian). So if they told the truth about domestic abuse, it would raise questions about (1) black youth culture, (2) single parenthood, and (3) lesbians. But those groups are aligned with the domestic abuse enthusiasts. So instead, they push the idea that domestic abuse can happen to anyone and the "face" of domestic abuse is a married white woman in her 50s. Why? Because if harmless old white dudes are really dangerous, then all men are dangerous.

That's what should offend people about all of this... it's not about truth, it's about slandering a particular target for political reasons. It is no different than Nazis propaganda about Jews, only it's more subtle in its initial presentation.

Anthony said...


I don't buy into the idea of a rape epidemic, but I do believe power disparities create incentives for abuse. In the upper tiers of Guatemalan society sexual abuse of maids is pretty much a rite of passage for young rich kids. The cynic in me thinks that is the case everywhere where people don't have equal standing in the eyes of the law.

That isn't to say that abuse is caused by power disparities, it's caused goons. I think the face of domestic abuse is middle aged and white because middle aged white woman are the wealthiest, most powerful group of women in the US and they tend to be the wives/mothers/whatevers of the wealthiest, most powerful group of men. They aren't the ones suffering the most abuse, but they are the ones with the most leverage over the system.

I think the problem is that the system is fine. Saving person A from Person B when their lives are tied together is and will always be an incredibly tall order because it's hard for the system and the people involved to analyze the threats, let alone decisively part those lives.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, The same this is apparently true throughout the Middle east, with foreign maids being abused.

I agree that legal disparity creates the opportunity and probably also implicitly condones such behavior. In our country though, there really is very little legal disparity left of that type. And what there is is more about being able to put up a better fight with more expensive attorneys.

That said, the left is anxious to get people to believe the law is entirely disparate because that is their ticket to getting to re-write it and doing so in a way that targets their enemies.

On domestic abuse, I agree with you to with one caveat. The other major factor is that whacko feminism is the generally run by upper-class white women. And they are the ones who fund the films, write the screenplays and write the books about their fantasy martyred existences.

That said, however, there is a clear ideological reason to attack older white men and I see that as their primary reason for targeting them. I say that because each leftist tribe picks their targets very carefully. If it were just that the people pushing leftist thought are all rich whites, then you wouldn't expect the kind of various that you get. Hence, I see their target list as largely intentional rather than as a by-product of their race/gender/upbringing.

EricP said...

>>hetereosexuals ... can go a long time without having to get off.>>

Congratulations on adapting to married life!!!

Great stuff, per the usual, AP. I’ve never claimed to understand feminists much (or, as someone who had a starter marriage before getting it right the second time, women in general), and this obsession with twisting rape statistics in the face of very solid facts, makes me shake my head even more. That a group of people (or anyone) would want to live in a fantasy world, where more people are harmed, instead of celebrating the provable goodness of mankind, makes no sense at all (well, aside from my not typing “humankind”). Very similar to the unraveling of the Jerry Sandusky case, in which digging deeper, going beyond the false narratives perpetuated by the ESPN-led sheeple, revealed no sexual acts whatsoever with the alleged victims (horrible boundary issues, but not one person testified to sex acts), to the point you’d think the public would be doing cartwheels of joy to the tune of “Whew, fewer cases of genuine pedophilia. Let’s focus on preventing actual cases of this heinous behavior instead of lynch-mobbing an innocent man and railroading the memory of the head coach who actually behaved like his admirable self had for his whole life.” You’d think.

As for inflating the gay numbers, great point made in the comments about learned, er, choice of behavior vs. being born gay. Love watching brains on the left implode when that gets mentioned. “But my homosexuality was latent till I got burned by an ex-lover, er, I knew but I didn’t know, um, um, um – Washington and Jefferson were fags!!! I mean they were gay”

Oh, I’m guessing we were all aware of how the gay community, in only a few short years this century, went from “I don’t need a piece of paper to know I’m married” to bullying state legislatures into recognizing gay marriage, and/or assaulting or ostracizing anyone who opposes gay marriage, right? It’s OK if you don’t, because apparently said community didn’t appear to get the memo.

AndrewPrice said...

Eric, LOL! Married life is a little different than dating, that's for sure.

I find the gay position on whether or not you can spot gays to be rather funny. On the one hand, we are told we can't spot them, hence there are many more than we will ever know... they are all around us. But then we are told that they are so easy to spot, which is why we need to be stopped from discriminating against them. Kramer then throws in this idea of gaydar, which we're told is racist/sexist/whateverist when heterosexuals claim to have it. Talk about contradictions.

EricP said...

First they tried to re-write our Founding Fathers' sexuality, then they came for our fictional superheroes ...

Post a Comment